Wallmart the Movie! please no flame war..

[Evan Kubota]

"But by his own admission he doesn't really "feel strongly" about the issue, so I assumed he hasn't."

I don't feel strongly enough about the 'evil of Wal-Mart' to buy books just to research it, that's for sure. There are many kinds of evidence. Yours are no more valid than any others, and none can be taken objectively.

Alternative viewpoints, huh? Meaning - yours? Do you have any interest in others' "alternative" viewpoints? Whether you do or not, I'll continue to pay half the price for K40 processing (not including shipping!) that you and others like you insist on spending.

[MovieStuff]

BTW, you're positing some odd arguments here Roger--what's your interest in this discussion? Is it just to counter the position that I take, whatever it is? What beef do you have with me?

I have no beef with you, personally, Tim. Didn't you see my smiley face?

Besides, as many here will attest, I will get in a scrap with most anyone if I feel they are talking the talk without walking the walk. (you should check the archives for some doozies) There is nothing personal and I have debated vigorously with many here that I still consider to be my friends. As such, I don't see any problem buying you a beer, assuming you are old enough. ;)

That said, your form of "debate" sometimes lacks balance. For instance, you write:

Like I've said a million times, I have no authority to dictate other's actions in any way, shape, or form.

but still insist:

all he has to do is say, "I've examined the evidence." Simple as that.

Therefore, Evan must still perform in a way that you approve for his opinion to be considered viable to you. In contrast, Evan unconditionally accepts your opinion as just an opinion (which may be your real point of contention, here). He may not agree with you -or me, quite often- but he isn't trying to "convince" you or me that his opinion is fact, as you clearly seem to be doing. You basically are saying that his opinion is wrong because he hasn't researched the topic deep enough and that if he did then he would agree with your opinion. This is Basic Debate Error 101 and is the first sign of a weak argument because it is a lazy way to assume victory; the old "if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense.

So while I don't have any beef with you personally, you do yourself a disservice by stating what could obviously be only an opinion framed as an absolute and then getting snitty with anyone that dares challenge you logically. Your "debate" then seems to turn personal and when someone asks for supporting evidence of your declarations, your response is that they should go research it if they are really interested but, in the meantime, they should just shut the hell up because YOU know what you are talking about, even if they don't. Maybe not in so many words but the sentiment is unmistakable and seems to be evident in many of your posts.

Perhaps you don't mean it to look that way but it comes across as if others are not allowed an opposing opinion despite the obvious fact that your own opinion is sometimes tenuous, at best, and lacks the same sort of supporting evidence that you demand from others. Your style is needlessly aggressive, IMHO, and counter-productive to your goals. I think you are smarter than that. You certainly have a good vocabulary. Just be careful you don't use up the entire lexicon in one response. Makes me tired. ;)

Roger

[Alex]

BTW, you're positing some odd arguments here Roger--what's your interest in this discussion? Is it just to counter the position that I take, whatever it is? What beef do you have with me?

I have no beef with you, personally, Tim. Didn't you see my smiley face?

Besides, as many here will attest, I will get in a scrap with most anyone if I feel they are talking the talk without walking the walk. (you should check the archives for some doozies) There is nothing personal and I have debated vigorously with many here that I still consider to be my friends. As such, I don't see any problem buying you a beer, assuming you are old enough. ;)

That said, your form of "debate" sometimes lacks balance. For instance, you write:

Like I've said a million times, I have no authority to dictate other's actions in any way, shape, or form.

but still insist:

all he has to do is say, "I've examined the evidence." Simple as that.

Therefore, Evan must still perform in a way that you approve for his opinion to be considered viable to you. In contrast, Evan unconditionally accepts your opinion as just an opinion (which may be your real point of contention, here). He may not agree with you -or me, quite often- but he isn't trying to "convince" you or me that his opinion is fact, as you clearly seem to be doing. You basically are saying that his opinion is wrong because he hasn't researched the topic deep enough and that if he did then he would agree with your opinion. This is Basic Debate Error 101 and is the first sign of a weak argument because it is a lazy way to assume victory; the old "if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense.

So while I don't have any beef with you personally, you do yourself a disservice by stating what could obviously be only an opinion framed as an absolute and then getting snitty with anyone that dares challenge you logically. Your "debate" then seems to turn personal and when someone asks for supporting evidence of your declarations, your response is that they should go research it if they are really interested but, in the meantime, they should just shut the hell up because YOU know what you are talking about, even if they don't. Maybe not in so many words but the sentiment is unmistakable and seems to be evident in many of your posts.

Perhaps you don't mean it to look that way but it comes across as if others are not allowed an opposing opinion despite the obvious fact that your own opinion is sometimes tenuous, at best, and lacks the same sort of supporting evidence that you demand from others. Your style is needlessly aggressive, IMHO, and counter-productive to your goals. I think you are smarter than that. You certainly have a good vocabulary. Just be careful you don't use up the entire lexicon in one response. Makes me tired. ;)

Roger

If one person has done some research, and someone else has not done as much research nor thinks it important enough to do the research, why would the person who hasn't done as much research be as passionate about the issue anyways?

[Super8rules]

And I'd never trust a propaganda film put out by any church group.

or Michael Moore

[greenplastic79]

Jesus F#cking Christ!

You have a funny way of taking a stand on morality.

Despite all the negative things Wal-Mart may do to a community, I believe it does help improve the quality of life for those on limited incomes. I prefer to shop elsewhere for personal reasons, but I don't discount (heh) the fact that Wal-Mart stores fill a niche. Can you imagine how many lower income families buy clothes, diapers, and formula at Wal-Mart? Maybe if they had to pay a bit more they wouldn't be able to do so without goverment assistance.

People have boycotted K-Mart because of their association with Waldenbooks, a store that carries pornography. People have boycotted Disney because they have a lot of gay advocacy policies. There are two sides to every story though, Waldenbooks sells an assortment of Bibles and children's books. Disney produces more child friendly content than anyone else.

But this is a low budget film forum. There is a very delicate amateur film ecosystem now because of the rise of digital media. The question is what is best for film in general. I think the answer to that is to shoot as much film as possible. If you get all your film developed through Wal-Mart, you can afford to shoot and develop more film than if you sent it directly to Dwaynes.

Wal-Mart has kind of subsidized my adventures in 35mm still photography and Super 8. It also wouldn't surprise me if Super 8 is a loss leader for Wal-Mart.

[DriveIn]

I read somewhere that Walmart edits the content of the dvd films they carry. However, I don't know if that is a fact.

You must be thinking of Blockbuster Video. There will be a community meeting this next week in our town concerning a new proposed super walmart to be built in our rural community. I might think to look at that DVD propaganda if it's educational. Oh, and a current legislative topic for our state is a not so old law created due to walmart gas station pricing. It requires fuel be sold a minimum 8 cents a gallon over wholesale. Walmart had a past history of selling fuel below wholesale to attract business to the store. They were selling fuel at a loss, and it was killing off independent gas station owners that made the majority of income on fuel sales. walmart seems to be a love hate relationship for many, they love to hate walmart. Wonder why that is? :roll: As for film developing. Since there is no movie film developing here in town, using walmart for just that purpose seems a moot point. If I need a new toaster, I can still buy one at the hardware store. The hardware store is competitive, and offers repair help if the toaster stops toasting. I tend to support the business that supports the community, not the business in it for the corporate stock holder payouts.
It's a matter of choice.

[Angus]

And I'd never trust a propaganda film put out by any church group.

or Michael Moore

Well you're quite right.

While I find him entertaining, at times a skilled film-maker and I probably agree with 75% of what he says....I am fully aware that he is pushing an agenda and is not producing unbiased material.

I would assume the same of any anit-Walmart films or books. That's not to say I wouldn't watch/read one...but I think I am fairly familiar with the arguments for and against.

[etimh]

Roger, did you actually read the posts in this thread?

That said, your form of "debate" sometimes lacks balance. For instance, you write:

Like I've said a million times, I have no authority to dictate other's actions in any way, shape, or form.

but still insist:

all he has to do is say, "I've examined the evidence." Simple as that.

You mis-read this. This was a direct response to your proposition that maybe Evan was more informed than I about this topic. I meant all he had to do was say that he had looked at the evidence and that would have added weight to his position.

Therefore, Evan must still perform in a way that you approve for his opinion to be considered viable to you.

Of course, based on your mis-reading of the previous comment above, this statement makes no real sense. The only 'performing' I encouraged Evan to do was to check out some differing viewpoints and his 'opinion' was never under scrutiny. It was his actions that I took issue with.

In contrast, Evan unconditionally accepts your opinion as just an opinion.

So? I don't get the importance of conceding this. Please re-read this comment--it is essentially meaningless.

He may not agree with you -or me, quite often- but he isn't trying to "convince" you or me that his opinion is fact, as you clearly seem to be doing.

Disagreement was never the issue--I'm quite sure we disagree. And if you go back and follow the thread carefully, you'll see that I was never asserting that my opinion was "fact." I made statements regarding my own positions and encouraged others to check out some different perspectives.

You basically are saying that his opinion is wrong because he hasn't researched the topic deep enough and that if he did then he would agree with your opinion.

Nope. The only thing suggested by the fact that he hasn't researched the topic deep enough is that he might not know all sides of the debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is Basic Debate Error 101 and is the first sign of a weak argument because it is a lazy way to assume victory; the old "if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense.

Huh? I've never heard of the old ""if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense? I've always lived by the "if I really cared enough I'd learn about something." Of course, this presupposes that you care enough about something to want to make the effort.

you do yourself a disservice by stating what could obviously be only an opinion framed as an absolute

Again, please re-read this sentence--it doesn't say anything, really. What does "could obviously be only an opinion framed as an absolute" mean? Did I ever give an opinion in the preceding dialog and state that it was an absolute truth? I don't think so.

and then getting snitty with anyone that dares challenge you logically.

Do you think I got "snitty?" Maybe, but not because anyone "dared" to challenge me "logically." My initial statements about checking out other resources on the topic were responded to with declarative statements that were neither challenging nor logical in their content. Most everyone simply stated their own positions on the subject.

when someone asks for supporting evidence of your declarations, your response is that they should go research it if they are really interested but, in the meantime, they should just shut the hell up because YOU know what you are talking about, even if they don't. Maybe not in so many words but the sentiment is unmistakable and seems to be evident in many of your posts.

If you go back once again and follow the line of discussion you will see that my suggestion to Evan was a practical one in response to his demand that I present evidence from the sources I had mentioned. This is clearly impractical on a forum such as this and seemed to me to be a convenient dodge by him to avoid confronting the real issue. Regardless, I will always encourage others to learn as much as they can about a given topic and the most efficient way of doing this is usually on one's own. And I would never suggest that anyone "shut the hell up" on any topic--your inference, not mine.

Perhaps you don't mean it to look that way but it comes across as if others are not allowed an opposing opinion despite the obvious fact that your own opinion is sometimes tenuous, at best, and lacks the same sort of supporting evidence that you demand from others.

Any suggestion that I assume others have no right to an opposing opinion is simply ridiculous. I would only encourage others to educate themsleves on basic knowledge on a topic. Whether this knowledge can, in fact, be viewed as legitimate evidence to support a given position can always be debated. But whether it is "obvious" to you that my opinion is "sometimes tenuous" or not is really beside the point. We are all entitled to opinions, it is only the body of evidence which generates and supports those opinions that can and should be scrutunized.

Your style is needlessly aggressive, IMHO, and counter-productive to your goals.

Well, you are entitled to your "opinion," even about this. Though I think your lack of understanding and clear citation of the previous thread indicates that you are conflating this discussion with some lingering resentment that you have from other instances in the past. I urge you to go back and carefully read the entire contents of a thread and follow the discussion as it develops before you are tempted to drop your questionable "observations" in the midst of an otherwise reasonable dialog.

Makes me tired.

WAKE UP!


Tim

[Angus]

Huh? I've never heard of the old ""if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense? I've always lived by the "if I really cared enough I'd learn about something." Of course, this presupposes that you care enough about something to want to make the effort.

Well I've been debating politics on the net for 10 years, and outside for more like 15 and I can tell you that tactic is often used by those who don't actually have information to hand themselves.

It sounds impressive, doesn't it...when you have an audience and you know you're beginning to lose...."Oh go and research, you obviously don't know the facts"...stops the argument dead....until you come across somebdoy armed with a briefcase full of facts...I've made top politicians and the ex head of the Hong Kong drug squad look like prize prats by carrying a large folder of facts, figures and international treaties with me...

[etimh]

Huh? I've never heard of the old ""if you really cared enough then you'd do the research" nonsense? I've always lived by the "if I really cared enough I'd learn about something." Of course, this presupposes that you care enough about something to want to make the effort.

Well I've been debating politics on the net for 10 years, and outside for more like 15 and I can tell you that tactic is often used by those who don't actually have information to hand themselves.

It sounds impressive, doesn't it...when you have an audience and you know you're beginning to lose...."Oh go and research, you obviously don't know the facts"...stops the argument dead....until you come across somebdoy armed with a briefcase full of facts...I've made top politicians and the ex head of the Hong Kong drug squad look like prize prats by carrying a large folder of facts, figures and international treaties with me...

But c'mon Angus--I recommended three credible books on the topic that I've personally read myself. And linked to a page with several others. Aside from scanning pdf files of the book pages with the relevant data and arguments and posting them in the thread, what more can I do?

If someone then questions the primary source material in the books (government data reports, ethnographic interviews, legal briefs and decisions) then they can further check them out themselves. Knowledge takes a little bit of work and a certain amount of personal responsibility.

Only, of course, if you care enough to want to explore further. If not, fuck it.

Tim

[MovieStuff]

Tim, you can say that people have a right to their own opinion but the agressive tone in many of your responses paints a different picture altogether. "Pushing" your opinion as an absolute early in the debate is a mistake because it allows you no room to admit error later without looking foolish and that can make one intractable. If you think that I am way off base here, that's okay. I know your opinion isn't fact so I have no real stake in the outcome of this discussion. My post was intended as friendly advice to you based on how you often seem to react agressively to people simply because they have opinions different than yours. It is a question of style, I suppose, and how much respect you give the other persons position at the beginning of a discussion can often lay the path for how they will accept yours later on, if that is important to you.

I've said my piece, friend. For whatever it is worth.

Roger

[monobath]

Oh, and a current legislative topic for our state is a not so old law created due to walmart gas station pricing. It requires fuel be sold a minimum 8 cents a gallon over wholesale. Walmart had a past history of selling fuel below wholesale to attract business to the store. They were selling fuel at a loss, and it was killing off independent gas station owners that made the majority of income on fuel sales.

Boo. Government-mandated price controls are as anti-competitive as the illegal price-fixing by private business.

[monobath]

Makes me tired.

WAKE UP!

Sounds like fundamentalism to me. :twisted:

No offense intended, Tim. I honestly don't know how you meant that. I'm just playing.

What I really wanted to say is that I thoroughly agree with your current tag line that says "There is no authority but yourself." This, in my view, expresses the essence of the concept of self-ownership.

[MovieStuff]

I thoroughly agree with your current tag line that says "There is no authority but yourself." This, in my view, expresses the essence of the concept of self-ownership.

Yes. I, too, like the new tag line.

Man, I feel like such a slacker. I need to come up with my own clever tag line.......hmmmm.

Nah. I'm gonna go eat waffles with syrup and slip into a hypoglycemic coma.

Roger

[monobath]

And I'm going to go eat blue corn enchiladas, chicken and mushroom enchiladas with chipotle sauce, migas, turkey, ham, and eggs benedict, drink champagne and mimosas, and then go into a fat and alcohol-induced torpor. Yum!